The “Extremist” Smear

We are seeing a lot of people or groups being denounced these days for “extremism” or “extremist rhetoric.” As Ayn Rand pointed out long ago, in her article “Extremism” or The Art of Smearing, holding an extreme position is not immoral. It is only the substance of the position one holds that can be good or evil. To be extreme in one’s position merely means one is being consistent – and it is this consistency that is being denounced, whether the people using the label realize it or not. The implication is that only “moderates” (another anti-concept) are good, while the “extremists” are evil. And what does being a “moderate” actually mean? Pragmatism.

If “extremism” is by definition immoral, than all laissez-faire capitalists are immoral. All advocates of inalienable rights are immoral. We are being equated with the murderers of al Qaeda, and the irrational religionists of the conservative movement – because we are “extreme” in our defense of individual rights, just as they are extreme in their quest to murder all who will not submit, or in their advocacy of creationism.

I don’t know if all of those using the smear label “extremist” realize what it implies. If not, they should examine the issue more closely, and use language more precisely.

Thanks for those links to the Ayn Rand Lexicon, Burgess. Another word being used today to smear principled thought is “ideologue.” It condemns anyone who has an ideology, i.e., a political philosophy, in favor of the preferred alternative, which, as usual, is pragmatism.

““I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Chuck: the use of “ideologue”, while definitely connected to militant pragmatism, tends to come more often from conservatives than Leftists, as the former have a fundamental hostility to any sort of rational “system-building”; they insist that their conservatism is not an ideology, but an “anti-ideology”.

Apart from the fact that this claim is flat wrong, that they make it at all is extremely telling about their fundamental irrationality — and their pride thereof.

Jim, I agree the use of “ideologue,” and of “extremist” as well, is widespread on both sides of the aisle. Both of my examples are from Little Green Footballs, a right wing blog, although it is becoming unpopular with conservatives since it started denouncing creationism. I don’t even visit leftist blogs or websites, so I couldn’t point to any examples from them.

National Security Workforce to Address ‘Intersectionality’: do you ever get the sense that you’re in a waking nightmare? Money quote from the memo: “Our greatest asset in protecting the homeland and advancing our interests abroad is the talent and diversity of our national security workforce.”

Last Week Tonight on Donald Trump: bit long, but great takedown of the Trump mythos. In a more rational political environment, this would have killed his presidential campaign. I’m not sure it’ll make any difference.

A Responsibility I Take Seriously: nominee must be “without any particular ideology or agenda” and have “a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook.” I sure hope the Republicans can hold the line on his nominations.

Trigger Warnings in Annapolis: I’m not sure why I expected the service academies to be bastions of academic freedom, but I did. It’s much worse than the universities since they’re far more hierarchical.

Announcing the Twitter Trust & Safety Council: this is within their rights, of course. Given the leftist leanings of the company and its assembled Council of Goodspeech, I suspect that some groups will get a pass and some will face suppression. Chilling at any rate.